Atchison National Reg Nom

NPS Form 10-900 OMB No.
10024-0018
(Oct. 1990)
United States Department of the Interior

National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places

Registration Form
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the
National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by "x" in the appropriate box or
by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter ''NA'' for ''not applicable.'' For functions,
architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional
entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items.
1. Name of Property
historic name Atchison Village Defense Housing Project, Cal. 4171-X
other names/site number Atchison Village Mutual Homes Corporation
2. Location
7 blocks bound by Macdonald Ave to the north, Ohio St to the south, First St to
street & number the east and Garrard Blvd to the west not for publication
city or town Richmond vicinity
state California code CA county Contra Costa code 013 Zip code 94801
3. State/Federal Agency Certification
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination
request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of
Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the properly
meets does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant
nationally statewide locally. ( See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of certifying official/Title Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria. ( See continuation sheet for additional
comments.)
Signature of certifying official/Title Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
4. National Park Service Certification

I hereby certify that the property is: Signature of the Keeper Date of Action
entered in the National Register.
See continuation sheet.
determined eligible for the
National Register
See continuation sheet.
determined not eligible for the
National Register.
removed from the National
Register.
other, (explain:)
7 1
Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Contra Costa County, California
Narrative Description (continued)
Summary
The former Atchison Village Defense Housing Project, presently known as Atchison Village Mutual
Homes Corporation, consists of 162 separate buildings comprising 450 dwellings units in addition to
the Community Building and the "playing field". The community sits on a flat 30 acre site in central
Richmond, California, between an industrial region, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad yard,
and low income housing. This mid-twentieth century vernacular housing project reflects the typical
construction and design practices of the United States Housing Authority (USHA) pre-World War II.
The building assemblies include concrete foundations, light-weight wood stud frames, and vinyl over
weatherboard siding.
All of Atchison Village's significant features, including the 162 domestic structures of five different
designs, the Community Building and the four-acre park, maintain a high degree of their historic
appearance. The deed to the defense housing project transferred in 1957 from the Federal Housing
Administration to the non-profit Atchison Village Mutual Homes Corporation. The corporation
supports strict development restrictions regarding any changes made to the community. Thereby the
integrity of the project has been strenuously guarded.
Original Layout
On October 16, 1941, the Federal Works Agency (FWA) issued an order to proceed for National
Defense Project Cal. 4171-X. Just prior to this date, John M. Carmody, then Federal Works Adminis-
trator, visited Richmond and confirmed the Richmond Housing Authority’s selection of the site for
Atchison Village.1 The chosen property is bound to the north by Macdonald Avenue from First Street
to Garrard Boulevard, and to the south by Ohio Street. This land worked well for the new housing
development not only for its level grade, but also for its close proximity to the Kaiser shipyards, about
two miles to the south, and to the commercial downtown to the east. Similar to other federal housing
projects to be built in Richmond, the site was in a lowland industrial area, where no clear neighbor-
hood pattern had been established. The property was purchased from the Atchison Topeka and Santa
Fe Railroad, hence the name “Atchison Village” in honor of the railroad’s former president.
The original defense housing plans, provided by the Mutual Homes Corporation, reveal that the
layout of the village was an irregular four-sided plan with a curved base that fit within the constraints
Continued.
7 2

of the purchased property. Four roads bisected the site into seven sections established by the archi-
tects, and allowed for entry from all directions except from the south. Curry and Collins Streets,
transversing the site from east to west, arc to the south mid-way through the property, diverging from
the typical orthogonal grid of Richmond. Curry Street aligns with the established angle of Garrard
Boulevard and the railroad tracks, and Collins Street mirrors this angle, forming the centrally located
triangular playing field.
Serving as a visual mark of entry from the north, the one-and-one-half-story Community Building,
framed by the fork in the roads, stands on the northern tip of the playing field. The housing structures
are dispersed throughout the site on meandering, tree lined roads. The majority of the soft-tone
buildings face the 50-foot-wide streets. Several units, however, align to form grassy courtyards that are
themselves oriented towards the road.
Structures cover only 15.4 percent of the land. Therefore, the village provides an ample of amount
green space for both public and private use. Not only do courtyards grace the public fronts of the
project, but also smaller, private back and side yards adjoin each dwelling. At a minimum, each
building retains a 15-foot setback from the interior line of the sidewalk and at least a 20-foot distance
from neighboring structures.
The open space has allowed for a significant amount of project landscaping. Original landscaping
consisted of lawns and trees including Monterey pines, Australian black acacias, and weeping willows.
Today in addition to these plantings, now matured, are resident-planted shrubs and flowering plants at
porches and building perimeters.
The original plans provided ample parking, for the car was quickly becoming the primary means of
transportation. Niches were carved out of the street boundaries for head-in parking, and several small
lots dot the area between structures so as not to be visible from the road. At its completion, each unit
was allotted one parking stall.
Continued.
7 3

CONTRIBUTING SITE FEATURES

Playing Field
A four acre park, originally referred to as the “playing field”, serves as the central element of the site.
Triangular in plan, this contributing site began simply as a large green space lined with trees. On
August 21, 1957, the Public Housing Administration turned over the title for the park to the City of
Richmond.2 The area remains a public park, but has undergone a few alterations. The city formed a
baseball diamond in the southeast corner and placed children’s playground equipment enclosed by a
chain link fence in the northeastern segment just south of the Community Building.
CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS
Community Building
Situated on the most prominent central location of the site, the Community Building served many
functions. It housed a social room, crafts room, general, managerial and consultation offices, a repair
shop, and storage rooms. Generally “L”- shaped in plan, the building has a 138' by 106' footprint and
contains approximately 7,000 square feet. Built at grade, the structure sits on a concrete foundation.
The central, pitched shingled roof over the Social Room rises up one-and-one-half stories to a height
of 22 feet, while the rest of the structure remains one story with a low-pitched composite roof standing
at only 11 feet. Redwood, cove rustic wood siding historically clad the structure, punctuated by wood
double-hung sash windows. Typical features include wood sash windows aligned in horizontal rows,
wood paneled doors, some with glass insets, wood boxed chimneys, corner boards, and linear roof
lines accented with wood cornices and a two-foot overhang.
The north elevation is the primary facade. It serves as the entrance both to the building, as well as to
the village. Although the structure is proportionally asymmetrical, the covered, recessed entrance
stands in the center of the facade. The central portion of the building sits two feet above grade,
requiring three concrete steps for access to the scored concrete entrance porch. Two vertical side
lights flank the double, wooden, two-lite entry doors, topped by five single-lite transom windows. All
of the double-hung windows on this facade begin at five feet above grade and ascend to a height of
ten feet. Not one window stands alone, as wooden trim encompasses sets of at least two. This
grouping reads as horizontal window banding consistent with the horizontal wood siding and low
linear lines of the eaves.
Continued.
7 4

The protruding volume above the Social Room rises up five feet above the typical ceiling height
throughout the building. This height allows for a row of six clerestory windows to provide natural
diffused light into the space below. Two more clerestory windows punctuate the raised volume on the
western side of the north facade. These windows allow light into the enclosed office restrooms below.
Rising up from both the east and west ends of the pitched roof are two chimneys clad in cove rustic
siding. A centered roof ventilator caps the building.
The flanking Repair Shop at the west end sits on grade, recessed from the public areas of building,
while maintaining the horizontal lines of the facade. The windows sit at the same heights, and the
wood cornice serves to unite the entire lower level of the north facade. On the far east corner of the
north elevation a partial-height wall historically obscured the kitchen service entrance. This porch is
now fully enclosed.
The south facade is similar to the north, but is quite clearly a less important elevation. Unlike on the
north side, the lower cornice on the south is broken by the elevated central mass. Six 11-foot window
sections with 10 lites each accent this expanse of wall. To the west of these windows a door with two
window panes originally provided a service entrance, and five double hung windows in groups of two
and three provided natural light to the public restrooms. Further west only two windows penetrate the
south wall of the store room. A porch, now enclosed, initially carved out the southeastern corner of
the building under the continuous roof overhang. The same type of wood double doors as at the main
entry, with glass insets and a three-lite transom above, graced the now hidden south wall of the scored
concrete porch.
The original side porch also affected the east elevation of the structure. Six-by-six posts, between
which a wooden railing was located, framed the recessed veranda. Three more concrete steps led up
to a door configuration exactly like the one at the north entrance, including the flanking windows.
To the south of the porch an extant grouping of five wood-sash windows at the standard height pierce
the wall of the repair shop and stock room. To the north, three double-hung windows provide light to
the former crafts room. At the northeastern corner, the covered service entrance to the kitchen was
initially concealed by a partial height gate, but today solid walls form this corner.
Continued.
7 5

At the west elevation, two sets of double doors are centered in a group of six double-hung windows.
The only other fenestration on this elevation is a row of seven wood-sash windows at the end.
Service parking flanks only this side of the building.
The Social Room, also known as the auditorium, acts as the primary space within the plan. The
rectilinear room originally filled the rear of the building, with an area of almost 1,800 square feet that
could be divided through the center by an accordion door. An exterior covered porch could be
accessed by the double doors on the east wall of the auditorium. The rooms to the front of the
building, north of the Social Room and east of the main entrance, were programmed for use, from
west to east, as a store room, crafts room, kitchen, service entrance, and restroom. Another storage
area fit between the service entry and the east porch. To the west of the small entry lobby are offices
projecting north beyond the entrance porch. Both an exterior door from the porch and an interior
door from the lobby access the office area, including a supply closet and both men’s and women’s
restrooms. The door at the lobby’s southwest corner connects to a 27-foot-long hall accessing the two
large public restrooms and a rear exit. Large open spaces, programmed as a repair shop, stock room,
paint store, and a small shop restroom, occupy the building’s westernmost portion.
The Community Building maintains its primary proportions and most of its significant features.
However, a few alterations were made in the late 1950s and early 1960s, including the enclosure of
the southeastern porch and the northeastern service entry.3 At this time, the redwood siding was
covered with a stucco finish, except for the north, east, and west clerestory walls, which were covered
with vinyl siding in the past decade. Also, a small paint closet now covers the south service entrance,
and a one-car garage sits on the southwest corner in the service yard. For security reasons, a chain link
fence now surrounds the entire building and its adjacent parking lot.
The interior configuration and room functions remain essentially the same. The crafts room, however,
has been converted into the credit union office, which has also taken over some of the auditorium
space. Finishes also are essentially intact.
Continued.
7 6

Residential Buildings
Atchison Village includes five different residential building types. Much of their design stems directly
from the USHA guidelines and Lanham Act conditions including, the low average cost of $3,300 per
dwelling unit, the efficent use of space planning, and a standard means of production by using similar
parts and materials throughout the project. They feature shared characteristics that unify the district.
Historically, one-by-ten cove rustic redwood siding, with corner boards at the edges, clad each
dwelling.4 The siding colors on each structure adhered to a simple palette of light blue, yellow, beige,
gray and white. The structures maintain a shingled roof with a pitch of 5:12, and present exposed
rafters at the eaves. Every unit’s front and rear entrances display covered concrete porches raised one
foot off grade. Four-by-four posts support the awnings and provide a frame for wood side railings. Each
residence is built on a continuous concrete foundation with narrow crawl spaces beneath.5
The elevations are simple, with no ornament, revealing only the buildings’ necessary functions. The
doors are wood, with a one-foot-high inset panel below four feet of window, comprising two stacked
lites. The front and back doors correspond in type, yet the back doors fill a frame of only two-and-
one-half feet wide, whereas the front doors span three feet. Also, two varieties of double-hung, two-
pane-wide, wood-sash windows were employed throughout the project. The first extends to a width of
three-and-one-half feet, while the second only reaches three feet. Both maintain a height of five feet.
Single-pane-wide, double-hung, four-foot-by-two-foot windows occur in some locations.
All residential structures employ the same interior finishes. One-inch tongue-and-groove stained wood
flooring covers the bedrooms, living rooms, separate dining spaces, halls, stairs, and “yard stations” or
exterior maintenance closets. The bathrooms, kitchens, and utility closets feature linoleum over 3/8-
inch plywood flooring. Gypsum lath and plaster were used to coat the majority of interior walls and
ceilings. Two-by-four studs at 16-inches-on-center frame the walls, with sound insulation dressing
both sides of the walls between units. All the trim consists of stained wood. A two-and-5/8-inch wood
board caps the bathroom wainscot.
Type 1
The first residential building type offers four one-bedroom units. One-story and linear in plan, this
design measures 24 feet by 90 feet. This housing group represents 17, or roughly 10 percent, of the
Continued.
7 7

dwelling structures within Atchison Village. The majority of the Type One buildings stretch length-
wise, north to south. Each interlocking “L”-shaped unit provides about 540 square feet of living space.
The front elevation is symmetrical. The two end unit entrances maintain their own porches, while
the center units share a single veranda. Wood-sash, double-hung windows, typical of this project,
penetrate the walls in an ‘a b b a’ rhythm. The end units mimic each other with each door flanked by
windows. The middle units each have two windows beside the entry doors.
The side facades feature a window near the front and one at the back corner. A series of doors
punctuates the rear facade in the same manner as the front. Although not noted on the original
drawing, small aluminum awnings cover most rear porches. Smaller, two-foot-by-four-foot, double-
hung windows penetrate the bathroom walls.
Remarkably, a window illuminates every room, except for the utility closets. Warnecke accomplished
this by devising “L”-shaped, interlocking plans that provide maximum exterior wall space for each
unit. All living rooms address the front, while the bedrooms may reside to the front or the rear of the
plan, serving as the interconnection between two units. The combined dining and kitchen area
always occupies the space behind and adjacent to the living room, and offers the only egress to the
rear porch. The bathroom fits next to the kitchen and can be directly accessed from the bedroom or
the living room, as stipulated by USHA standards.6 Each unit features a bedroom closet, hall closet,
linen closet and a large utility closet.
Type 2
The second housing type provides two, two-bedroom units. Linear in plan, this design covers a
footprint of 24 feet by 56 feet. Twenty-five, or 15 percent of buildings within the site take on this
form. These units all face either the street or the surrounding structures, and lack a uniform angle.
Almost square in plan, the units encompass about 672 square feet.
Four double-hung windows penetrate the symmetrical front facade. In the center, two frames sit 12
feet apart between the entry porches. The other two windows adjoin with the side window frames.
Only two windows punctuate the two side facades. Each opening occurs at a corner, allowing an
Continued.
7 8

expanse of wall between. The rear facade is also balanced. A corner window hangs to the outside of
each back door. Two small bathroom windows and two standard windows fill the area between the
porches.
The plan places the living room at the front, outside corner of each unit. From the living area every
other space can be accessed directly. The combined kitchen and dining area contains the utility
closet, in the back outside corner, and a door to the rear yard. Bedrooms occupy the building’s center.
In each unit, one bedroom sits to the front and the other to the back. The separation wall between
the units jogs slightly to allow each bedroom to have a closet four feet wide. The compact bathroom
falls between the kitchen and rear bedroom. The hall leading to the bathroom contains both a coat
closet and a linen closet.
Type 3
The third type of residential building accounts for 34 percent of housing structures. This three-
bedroom configuration appears 55 times in the community. Linear in plan, the building contains two
reflected units that abut at the central bedroom wall. The perimeter measures 69 feet by 25 feet, and
each unit offers about 860 square feet. This one-story building features a centered bay window on
either the left or right end wall, depending on building orientation. In all cases that the building sits
perpendicular to the road, the bay window faces the street.
Type three presents the only asymmetrical front facade of the residential buildings. In the center, two
sets of two, three-foot wide windows hang four-and-one-half feet apart, flanked by a three-and-one-
half foot wide window. Outside of one entry porch sits a large window that adjoins with the side
frame, while the opposite end presents the same window not at the corner, but equidistant from the
door and the edge of the building.
The side elevations differ. One facade simply presents a corner window. The opposite side centers the
bay window on the wall. The protruding seven-foot high bay begins at one-foot off grade, fills an
eight-foot-five inch wide space, and extends out two feet. Siding covers the bay to the height of the
window sill. The central five-foot-seven-inch wide panel holds a four-lite fixed-sash wood window.
The other two-and-one-half foot sides contain a two-lite double-hung wood window.
Continued.
7 9

The rear elevation features symmetrical fenestration between the two kitchen doors. Two wider,
central windows are flanked by two smaller windows. To the outside of the bay-window-unit’s porch,
one narrow double-hung window abuts the door. On the opposite end a standard window hangs
centered between the kitchen door and the wood paneled “yard station” door.
The unit plans each have two bedrooms at the front next to the living room, and one at the rear
adjacent to the bathroom. However, the living, kitchen, and dining layout differs slightly. One
residence combines the living and dining rooms into one large area before the bay window, and access
to the kitchen occurs through a door at the end of this space. The kitchen, as in other units, contains
a utility closet and a door to the rear patio. The facing unit features a solitary living room and a
combined kitchen and dining area connected to a utility closet. A “yard station”, accessed from the
exterior only, fills the space of the rear corner of this residence.
Type 4
Type Four provides four two-bedroom units in a two-story, linear arrangement that measures 62-feet-
four inches by 24-and-one-half feet. This plan affords a per unit area of 764 square feet. The commu-
nity includes 46 Type Four structures, which represent 28 percent of the total construction.
The symmetrical front elevation features two sloped awnings projecting five feet to cover the two sets
of entry doors. On the first floor two groups of two windows hang two feet apart between the porches,
while on the facade edges a standard window punctuates the wall. A corner window occurs directly
above on each end of the second floor. Four additional windows create a horizontal band in the
center of the second floor to complete the facade. The second floor windows are shorter than those
on the first.
The two side elevations are identical. Both display only one window per floor, on the front edge.
Many windows punctuate the rear elevation. Double-hung windows flank the two sets of two covered
back doors. On the far left of the elevation stands a “yard station” door. Two small bathroom windows
are centered above each awning, flanked by a total of four larger windows.
Continued.
7 10

The plans offer a simple allocation of space. The stairs stand directly across from the front door and
adjacent to the living area. A closet fits just under the stair. The combined kitchen and dining room
sits to the back of the building with access through the living room. The kitchen has a back door and
a utility closet. The second floor provides two bedrooms, one to the front and one to the back, and a
bathroom located at the top of the stair.
Type 5
Rectilinear in plan, this two-story structure provides two, two-bedroom units, and measures 31-feet-
four-inches by 24-feet-six-inches. The Type Five unit plan is the same as Type Four, and also contains
764 square feet of space. The 19 buildings of this variety equal roughly 12 percent of the total
housing.
The front elevation presents a covered porch that unites the two front doors under one eleven-foot-
wide awning. One large double-hung window rests on the edge of each wall at the first floor. Only
two smaller bedroom windows punctuate the upper level of the elevation.
The two side facades are identical, with two shorter windows, eight feet apart, centered on the second
floor, and one standard window at the front corner. The rear elevation contains two kitchen doors
under one 13-foot awning. A standard window hangs to the outside of each door, with two small
bathroom windows above. The “yard station” door on the right side completes the elevation.
The Type Five plan is one-half of building Type Four. The living rooms reside to the front of the unit,
with the combined kitchen and dining area to the back. The stair stands directly across from the front
door and ascends to the bathroom. The bedrooms sit on the second floor in the outside corners.
INTEGRITY
Through the years the Atchison Village Mutual Homes Corporation established development
regulations that serve to guide any changes to the community structures. Therefore, modifications
have been minimal and strictly guarded. The most significant alterations to the buildings include the
Continued.
7 11

addition of metal security bars over many of the windows and doors, and the installation of vinyl
siding over the extant, historic redwood boards. The vinyl siding replicates the size, profile, and colors
of the original cove rustic siding, and does not obscure any architectural features of the structures.
Thereby, the integrity of the district was not damaged by the addition of the new siding. The original
wood-encased chimneys have since been replaced with prefabricated insulated metal chimney flues.
Regulations also allowed for storage sheds to be located on the back patios with a maximum coverage
of 50 percent of the area, not to exceed 120 square feet in size, and for new fences or hedges, at a
maximum height of six feet, to enclose back and side yards. The corporation permitted one unit to
construct an accessible concrete ramp to the front entrance. The majority of original doors and
windows remain intact.
A few alterations affect the entire village such as the addition of parking spaces, primarily located
behind structures, to provide individual units with more than the original one allocated space. In
1992, the city of Richmond constructed a sound wall along the western edge of the village to dampen
the noise from the recently expanded Garrard Avenue as part of the new Richmond Parkway project.7
This wall blocks access to the village from the western intersections of Garrard and Bissell Avenue to
the north and Chanslor Avenue to the south. In conjunction with this project, Public Services also
formed new cul-de-sacs at the road ends. In November of 1998 the city government introduced two
Continued.
7 12

street-wide gates, at the eastern Bissell Avenue and Chanslor Avenue entrances, as a crime reducing
measure. Now only one entrance to Atchison Village remains available to the public.
ENDNOTES
1. “First Annual Report of the Richmond Housing Authority.” (Richmond: Richmond Housing
Authority, 1941), 10.
2. “Richmond Gains Title to Atchison Village Park.” Richmond Independent, August 21, 1957.
3. Orien Fitch, telephone conversation, 4 February 2002.
4. Bradley Inman, “Bay Area’s Absolute Best Bargain in Housing?”, San Francisco Sunday Examiner
and Chronicle, 1990, Living In section.
5. Burgess S. Poole to Edwin S. Howell, Memorandum, December 8, 1954, “Report on Atchison

Village and Atchison Village Annex,” Richmond Collection, Richmond Public Library.
6. “Plan Standards for Defense Housing.” Architectural Record, 90 (November 1941): 72.
7. Siamak Etevadi, City of Richmond Public Services Engineer, telephone conversation, 6 February
2002.
END.
Continued.
8 13

Narrative Statement of Significance (continued)

Architect/Builder (continued)
Epp, Leo, Builder
Narrative Statement of Significance
Summary
Atchison Village Defense Housing Project is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under
criterion A because it represents an important effort by both the federal and local governments to
provide low-cost family housing for workers involved in the defense shipbuilding industry during
World War II. Just prior to and during the war, the Lanham Act of 1940 provided $150 million to the
Federal Works Administration, which built approximately 625,000 units of housing in conjunction
with local authorities nationwide. Brigadier General Philip B. Fleming, then Federal Works Adminis-
trator, selected the Richmond Housing Authority to be the first authority in the country to manage a
defense project. Atchison Village represents one of twenty public housing projects built in Richmond
before and during World War II. Constructed in 1941 as Richmond’s first public defense housing
project, it is the only project funded by the Lanham Act extant in Richmond and one of the few in
the nation that was not destroyed. Atchison Village has already been designated a Richmond
“Historic Resource”1 and has been listed as a “theme-related site” in conjunction with the Rosie the
Riveter National Historic Park.2
Atchison Village should be considered at the national level of significance as it is a site within the
Rosie the Riveter National Historic Park that was established through an act of the United States
Congress and signed into being by President Bill Clinton on October 25, 2000. 3 Being that Rich-
mond presents a critical mass of extant structures that were solely built for and dedicated to the World
War II home front effort, the National Park Service found the city to be the best location in the
nation for a home front national park.4 Atchison Village not only plays an integral role in the Rosie
the Riveter National Historic Park, but also stands as a prime example of one of the only public
defense housing projects remaining in the United States.
World War II Defense Housing in Richmond, California

Even before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the city of Richmond began to feel the effects of the war. In
January 1941 the United States Federal government, in conjunction with Henry J. Kaiser, began
Continued.
8 14

construction on the first shipyard in the then semi-rural, small town of Richmond, selected for its
deep-water ports and unoccupied land. The shipyards, as well as 55 other war related industries,
attracted a massive influx of migrant workers, mostly from the southern and midwestern states. The
Kaiser company brought almost 38,000 workers to their shipyards, while over 60,000 made their own
way to the Bay.5 In April of 1940 only 23,000 people resided within the municipality, but by 1943 the
population had increased to over 100,000.6 Richmond was completely unprepared to become a
bourgeoning metropolis. The city lacked both sufficient infrastructure and housing needed to support
the immense population increases.
Logically, the city with “perhaps the greatest growth in population of any wartime center in the
United States” would become quite prosperous.7 However, all the federally controlled defense
industries were exempt from local taxation, which led Richmond into a steep decline of property tax
revenues. The municipal government sought much-needed financial relief through Federal govern-
ment programs. Under the Lanham Act the government authorized “payments in lieu of taxes” to
cities requesting aid for specific wartime programs.8
The Lanham Act provided federal funding for vital temporary defense housing. As many American
politicians of the time were concerned with the socialist implications of public housing, the Act
stipulated involvement of local authorities in the management of these projects. The federal govern-
ment also emphasized the impermanence of the housing units, as a means to appease local builders
and developers. According to the Lanham Act, temporary war housing was to be removed within two
years after the war ended. An exception was made for housing found necessary for the war effort
demobilization.9
In early 1941 the Richmond Chamber of Commerce began developing plans for the creation of a
local housing authority. The importance of forming an authority to safeguard local interests in the
imminent urban growth and the maintenance of traditional housing patterns became increasingly
evident with the development of the shipyards. With the Richmond Independent championing their
cause, the City Council, by resolution, formed the Housing Authority of the City of Richmond on
January 24, 1941, “to represent the community in carrying out the Federal Public Housing Adminis-
tration programs for low-income families.”10
Continued.
8 15

The Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) completed three federally funded housing projects in their
first year. By the end of World War II, Richmond would maintain the largest federal housing program
in the nation. Agencies had constructed 21,000 housing units by 1943, which housed over 60
percent of Richmond’s total population.11 The funding for these various projects came not only from
the Lanham Act, but also from the United States Maritime Commission, the Federal Public Housing
Administration, and the Farm Security Administration.
The first project constructed in Richmond, Atchison Village, was financed through the Lanham Act
defense funds. The Federal Works Administration complimented the Richmond Housing Authority
by designating them the “Agent of the Federal Works Administrator” for the construction of the
$1,717,000 Atchison Village.12 No other housing authority in the nation had yet been appointed to
manage a defense project. The other two projects that year, Triangle Court and Nystrom Village, were
constructed with United States Housing Authority funds.
The United States Housing Authority (USHA) hired Carl I. Warnecke to be the project architect
and Andrew T. Hass to be the associate architect for the design of Atchison Village, or National
Defense Project CAL 4171X. Both architects were well trained and highly respected in their field.13
Warnecke, the more renowned of the two, studied at the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris, and appren-
ticed under Bernard Maybeck after returning to California. Shortly after he died in 1971, a retrospec-
tive exhibition of his work showed in New York City.14
With suggestions from the Richmond officials, the Federal Works Administrator selected the 30-acre
site to be purchased from the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad. Warnecke and Hass finished
the design of the village in September 1941. The housing structures were typical of the period and
complied with the strict USHA defense housing standards. The Lanham Act itself limited designs by
requiring that no more than $3,500 be spent per unit. As discussed by Architectural Record, the most
important aspect of defense housing design included economy: “economy of space planning; economy
in the use of materials and units of equipment; [and] economy in time.”15
The strength of this project lies in the development of the site itself and the relationships between the
Continued.
8 16

structures. The architects of Atchison Village drew from the principles of Ebenezer Howard’s Garden
City movement and New Town ideals. Resigning from the established grid pattern of Richmond,
Warnecke cut diagonal and curved streets through the site that provided for a relationship to the
railroad and the placement of a large park within the village. The program included a central
Community Building that served to unify the project. The residential buildings are oriented in
relation to each other, forming small courtyards from the spaces between.
On October 30, 1941, building permit #15777 was issued to the RHA for the construction of the 450-
unit Atchison Village.16 Only 650 federally funded units were built for permanence in Richmond,
including Atchison Village. The remaining public housing projects were constructed to be temporary
and included “dormitories, demountables, and trailers.”17 The typical housing construction and design
qualities were very poor. A Fortune magazine journalist described that “huge barrack-like public-
housing projects cover the mud flats between the harbor and the town.”18 In general the projects were
located on swampy flat-lands and provided unsanitary living conditions. Atchison Village provided a
striking alternative to the typical housing situations found in Richmond. It soon came to be
“Richmond’s most coveted wartime housing project.”19 This community was privileged to be sited on
firm, dry land and to have ample green space, trees, and solid construction.
Atchison Village provided much needed housing for shipyard workers and their families. Many of the
residents were deemed Rosie the Riveters, a propaganda name given to women who worked on the
Liberty ships. The tenants sent their children to the nearby day care centers developed for the
shipyards, the Maritime Child Development Center and the Ruth C. Powers Child Development
Center, while they worked. When the residents were at home their individual yards and the large
playing field provided them with places where their children could safely play. The community center
in the village offered a location for neighbors to gather and have functions, a feature no other housing
project could boast.
Even after the war had ended, the need for housing had not. This need led the government to
postpone the destruction of projects to far beyond the original two year post-war deadline. Not until
November of 1950, five years after the end of the war, did the government begin the process of
“conveyance or disposal” of Atchison Village.20 The City Council decided not to convert the project
Continued.
8 17

into low-income public housing in November 1954. Therefore, the city turned to the three means of
disposal that were identified under the provisions of the Lanham Act. The first offered each building,
at a fixed price, to a preference buyer, such as a veteran. The second sale plan presented the entire
property to a group of veterans organized as a cooperative. The final sale plan issued bidding to
anyone, but only after the first two plans had failed.21
While other housing projects were being razed, a group of Atchison Village residents formed a Mutual
Homes Corporation. After sale plans one and two had both failed, the community was available to
public purchase. In a hurried effort, the Corporation raised $50,000 for the down payment and
bought the Village from the government.
The fate of other Richmond housing projects was in peril, for it was deemed necessary that housing
be removed as soon as the war was over.22 By 1953 all of the seventeen projects near the harbor were
torn down, in accordance with the Lanham Act. Nystrom Village, built the same year as Atchison but
only a quater of the size, was converted into low-income public housing. Still extant, Nystrom Village
illustrates a lower design quality, offerning little public open space, and does not maintain the integrity
of Atchison Village, demonstrating a greater amount of alterations. Triangle Court also was converted
into low-income public housing, but the original structures have since been destroyed and new
housing built in its place.
Atchison Village demonstrates a cohesive example of a World War II Home Front defense housing
project. It stands as an important intact model of both federal and local government intervention in
the defense effort. Nationally, most of these housing sites were built as temporary installations and
were either modernized, altered, or leveled and redeveloped for other uses.23 With the Mutual Homes
Corporation remaining as the owner and manager of the community, their strict covenants have
protected the site and maintained its integrity. Atchison Village is an integral part of the Richmond
Home Front, and in their feasibility study the National Park Service found that “Richmond is
significant for its Home Front story in the San Francisco Bay Area, on the Pacific Coast and nation-
ally.”24
Continued.
8 18

Endnotes
1. City of Richmond Resolution 82-01, June 19, 2001.
2. National Park Service, Final Feasability Study Report for Designation of Rosie the Riveter Memorial as a
National Park System Area (2000): 50.
3. Masten, Shawn. “Rosie the Riviter Wins National Park Status,” Contra Costa Times (October 26,
2000), A03.
4. National Park Service.
3. Donald Albrecht, ed., World War II and the American Dream: How Wartime Building Changed a
Nation. Essays by Margaret Crawford et al. (Washington, D. C.: National Building Museum and the
MIT Press, 1995), 101.
4. State Reconstruction and Reemployment Commission, Richmond, California: A City Wins the
Purple Heart. (Pamphlet no. 2. Sacramento, August 1944), 3-4.
5. Western Shipbuilders in World War II: A Detailed Review of Wartime Activities of Leading Maritime and
Navy Contractors, (Oakland, CA: Shipbuilding Review Publishing Association, 1945), 56.
6. Shirley Ann Wilson Moore, To Place Our Deeds: The African American Community in Richmond,
California, 1910-1963, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 73.
7. State Reconstruction and Reemployment Commission, Postwar Housing in California, (Sacra-

mento, 1945), 22.
8. William Sokol, “From ‘Workingman’s Town’ to ‘All American City 1954’: the Socio-political
Economy of Richmond, California during World War Two,” (Copy in Richmond Collection,
Continued.
8 19

Richmond Public Library, June 1971), 21.

9. Moore, 84.
10. Housing Authority of the City of Richmond, First Annual Housing Report, (May 1942).
11. First Annual Housing Report.
12. “Carl I. Warnecke is Dead at 80,” Architectural Record, 149 (May 1971): 36.
13. “Plan Standards for Defense Housing,” Architectural Record, 90 (November 1941): 71.
14. First Annual Housing Report.
15. Richmond, California: A City Wins the Purple Heart, 6-7.
16. “Richmond Took a Beating,” Fortune Magazine, (February 1945): 262.
17. Richard Reinhart, “Richmond’s Boom That Didn’t Bust: Where Can Displaced Tenants Find
Homes?,” The San Francisco Chronicle, (August 21, 1953).
18. Paul Wendt, “Report on Conveyance to Richmond Housing Authority of Atchison Village and
Annex for Permanent Low-rent Use,” (November 1, 1957, Copy in Richmond Collection, Rich-
mond Public Library), 1.
19. Richmond, Office of the City Manager, Atchison Village and Annex Housing Projects: Brief
Historical Review and Alternate Methods of Future Operation, (October 25, 1954), D6.
20. Richmond, California: A City Wins the Purple Heart, 7.
21. National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, Final Feasibility Study Report for Designa-
tion of Rosie the Riveter Memorial as a National Park System Area, (June, 2000), 58.
22. National Park Service.

Continued.
END.
9 20

Bibliography (continued)
Albrecht, Donald, ed. World War II and the American Dream: How Wartime Building Changed a
Nation. Essays by Margaret Crawford et al. Washington, D. C.: National Building Museum and the
MIT Press, 1995.
Althans, Tracey. “Wartime Housing and the American Dream: An Exploration of Vanport, Oregon.”
The ASHP Journal, University of Oregon, Spring, 1999, pp 8-9.
Archibald, Katherine. Wartime Shipyards: A Study in Social Disunity. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1947.
“Bay Region Defense Housing Project, A.” Architect and Engineer, 146 (September 1941): 20.
"Birth of Victory." Video, nd (c. 1945). The Permanente Metal Corporation, Kaiser Company Inc.,
Kaiser Cargo Inc., and Richmond California.
Butt, Thomas K. “Richmond’s Atchison Village Achieves Remarkable Results.” Western City, March
2001.
California. State Reconstruction and Reemployment Commission. Postwar Housing in California.

Sacramento, 1945.
California. State Reconstruction and Reemployment Commission. Richmond, California: A City Wins
the Purple Heart. Pamphlet no. 2. Sacramento, August 1944.
“Carl I. Warnecke is Dead at 80.” Architectural Record, 149 (May 1971): 36.
Cole, Susan D. Richmond: Windows to the Past. Richmond: Wildcat Canyon Books, 1980.
Henry J. Kaiser Company. Proposal for Conversion from Temporary F.P.H.A. Housing to Permanent
Private Homes. Richmond, CA: Kaiser Company, [1946].
Continued.
9 21

Inman, Bradley. “Bay Area’s Absolute Best Bargain in Housing?” San Francisco Sunday Examiner and
Chronicle, 1990, Living In section.
Johnson, Marilyn S. The Second Gold Rush: Oakland and the East Bay in World War II. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1999.
Jones, Fred. “Oakland’s Low Rent Housing Projects.” Architect and Engineer, 151 (October 1942): 15-
27.
Kane, Kimberly L. "Historic Context for the World War II Ordnance Departments Government-
Owned Contractor-Operated (GOCO) Industrial Facilities, 1939-1945." Plano, TX: U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, 1995.
Masten, Shawn. “Rosie the Riviter Wins National Park Status,” Contra Costa Times (October 26,
2000), A03.
Moore, Shirley Ann Wilson. To Place Our Deeds: The African American Community in Richmond,
California, 1910-1963. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.
Myers, John H. Preservation Brief 8: Aluminum and Vinyl Siding on Historic Buildings. Revised by Gary
L. Hume. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, October, 1984.
National Park Service. U.S. Department of the Interior. Final Feasibility Study Report for Designation of
Rosie the Riveter Memorial as a National Park System Area. June, 2000.
Pascual, Psyche. “A Village Trapped in Time.” West County Times, 24 October 1999.
“Plan Standards for Defense Housing.” Architectural Record, 90 (November 1941): 71-96.
Continued.
9 22

Poole, Burgess S. to Edwin S. Howell, Memorandum, “Report on Atchison Village and Atchison
Village Annex,” December 8, 1954, Richmond Collection, Richmond Public Library.
Reinhart, Richard. “Richmond’s Boom That Didn’t Bust: Bureaucrats Can Be Handy Scapegoats.”
The San Francisco Chronicle, 20 August, 1953.
Reinhart, Richard. “Richmond’s Boom That Didn’t Bust: Where Can Displaced Tenants Find
Homes?.” The San Francisco Chronicle, 21 August, 1953.
Richmond. City Planning Commission. A Report on Housing and Redevelopment. January 1950.
–––. Housing Authority. First Annual Housing Report. May 1942.
–––. Housing Authority. Second Annual Housing Report. 1943.
–––. Office of the City Manager. Atchison Village and Annex Housing Projects: Brief Historical Review
and Alternate Methods of Future Operation. October 25, 1954.
–––. Resolution of the Council of the City of Richmond, California Approving the Designation of All of
Atchison Village as a Historic Resource Pursuant to the Richmond Historic Structures Code. June 19, 2001.
“Richmond Took a Beating.” Fortune Magazine, (February 1945): 262-269.
Robinson & Associates, Inc., and Jeffrey Shrimpton. Draft Historic Context: Public Housing in the
United States, 1933-1949. August 14, 1997.
Sazama, Gerald W. “A Brief History of Affordable Housing Cooperatives in the United States.” Paper,
University of Connecticut, 1996.
Sokol, William. “From ‘Workingman’s Town’ to ‘All American City 1954’: the Socio-political
Continued.
9 23

Economy of Richmond, California, during World War Two.” June 1971. Copy in Richmond
Collection, Richmond Public Library.
Straus, Nathan. “1941 Public Housing Program.” Architect and Engineer, 144, no. 2 (February 1941):
56.
U.S. Department of the Interior. U. S. Housing Authority. Design of Low-Rent Housing Projects:
Planning the Site. Bulletin no. 11 on Policy and Procedure, 1939.
“War Needs: Community Facilities.” Architectural Record, 91 (May 1942): 55.
“War Needs: Housing.” Architectural Record, 91 (April 1942): 51.
Wendt, Paul. “Report on Conveyance to Richmond Housing Authority of Atchison Village and
Annex for Permanent Low-rent Use.” November 1, 1957. Copy in Richmond Collection, Richmond
Public Library.
Western Shipbuilders in World War II: A Detailed Review of Wartime Activities of Leading Maritime and
Navy Contractors. Oakland, CA: Shipbuilding Review Publishing Association, 1945.
Wright, Gwendolyn. "The Evolution of Public Housing Policy and Design in the San Francisco - Bay
Area." Ph.D. diss. exam, University of California, Berkeley, 1976.
END.
Continued.
10 24

Geographical Data
Verbal Boundary Description

The following sequence of metes and bounds is from the property deed written on February 26, 1957:
Beginning at a concrete monument in the point of intersection of the southerly line of Macdonald
Avenue (80 feet wide) and southeasterly line of Garrard Boulevard (80 feet wide); thence along the
southeasterly line of Garrard Boulevard, South 42 degrees 26 minutes West, 841.79 feet to its
intersection with the center line of Chanslor Avenue; thence southeasterly and easterly along the said
center line of Chanslor Avenue along a curve to the right with a radius of 436.00 feet, from a tangent
that bears South 47E 34' east and through a central angle of 17E 36' 22" a distance of 133.98 feet to a
curve to the left with a radius of 1097 feet, from a tangent that bears South 29E 57' 38" East; thence
along said curve to the left through a central angle of 46E 26' 49" an arc distance of 889.29 feet;
thence radially South 13E 35' 33" West a distance of 113.24 feet to a point; thence South 0E 02' 30"
East a distance of 120.00 feet to a point; thence North 89E 57' 30" East a distance of 900.00 feet to a
concrete monument; thence (crossing Chanslor and Bissell Avenues) North 00 degrees 28 minutes
East 1497.54 feet to a concrete monument in the Southerly line of Macdonald Avenue; thence along
said line due West 1087.96 feet to the point or place of beginning, being a portion of Lot 43, Rancho
San Pablo.
Boundary Justification
The described boundary encompasses all of the buildings included in the Atchison Village Defense
Housing Project and the park.
END
25

Additional Documentation (continued)
A. Owner’s letter of approval
B. USGS Map (Richmond Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series)
C. Site Plan
D. Diagrammatic Floor Plans of Residential Building Types 1-5
E. Existing Conditions Photographs (1-9)
F. Historic Photograph (10)
G. Index to Photographs:
Photographs #1-9 submitted with this nomination were taken by Kimberly Butt, on January 10, 2002,
and the negatives reside at the office of Carey & Co, 460 Bush, San Francisco, CA.
1. View of the village entrance facing south.
2. View of the north facade of the Community Building facing south.
3. Photo of the Playing Field from Collins Street looking southwest.
4. Chanslor Avenue streetscape looking east.
5. Courtyard view on Bissell Avenue facing north.
6. Facade of “Building Type 1” on Collins Street looking northeast.
7. View of “Building Types 2 and 3” on Follette Street looking northeast.
Continued.
26

Additional Documentation (continued)
8. Front view of “Building Type 4” on Chanslor Avenue facing northeast.
9. View of “Building Type 5” on Collins Street facing northwest.
10. Historic view of the north facade of the Community Building facing south. The photographer and
date are unknown. The original photograph resides in the Richmond Room of the Richmond Public
Library.
11. Historic photo of the Garrard Blvd streetscape just after project completion, c. 1941. The
photographer is unknown. The original image resides in the First Annual Report of the Housing
Authority of the City of Richmond located at the Richmond Museum of History.
END.

Atchison National Reg Nom

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Atchison National Reg Nom

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

NPS Form 10-900 OMB No.

United States Department of the Interior

National Register of Historic Places

historic name Atchison Village Defense Housing Project, Cal. 4171-X

other names/site number Atchison Village Mutual Homes Corporation

city or town Richmond vicinity

3. State/Federal Agency Certification

Signature of certifying official/Title Date

State or Federal agency and bureau

Signature of certifying official/Title Date

State or Federal agency and bureau

4. National Park Service Certification

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Description (continued)

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Description (continued)

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Description (continued)

CONTRIBUTING SITE FEATURES

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Description (continued)

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Description (continued)

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Description (continued)

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Description (continued)

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Description (continued)

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Description (continued)

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Description (continued)

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Description (continued)

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Description (continued)

3. Orien Fitch, telephone conversation, 4 February 2002.

5. Burgess S. Poole to Edwin S. Howell, Memorandum, December 8, 1954, “Report on Atchison

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Statement of Significance (continued)

Epp, Leo, Builder

Narrative Statement of Significance

World War II Defense Housing in Richmond, California

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Statement of Significance (continued)

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Statement of Significance (continued)

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Statement of Significance (continued)

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Statement of Significance (continued)

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Statement of Significance (continued)

1. City of Richmond Resolution 82-01, June 19, 2001.

4. National Park Service.

7. State Reconstruction and Reemployment Commission, Postwar Housing in California, (Sacra-

Atchison Village Defense Housing Project

Narrative Statement of Significance (continued)

Richmond Public Library, June 1971), 21.

11. First Annual Housing Report.

14. First Annual Housing Report.

15. Richmond, California: A City Wins the Purple Heart, 6-7.